There are many roles that come to mind when it comes to the topic of Michael J. Fox's acting career. He is, of course, most recognized for his leading role as Marty McFly in the iconic Back to the Future trilogy: three films released between 1985 and 1990, with all (especially the first) standing as some of the most beloved sci-fi comedies of all time. He's been in other comedic movies, like Teen Wolf, and also demonstrated his capacity to excel in more dramatic performances, like Brian De Palma's downbeat anti-war film Casualties of War (1989). He's also appeared on numerous TV shows throughout his career, with his most famous role in that sphere being Alex P. Keaton on the sitcom Family Ties, which began airing in 1982 (pre-dating Back to the Future) and concluded its run in 1989.
It's natural for such a jam-packed career to have some roles that get overlooked, with one of Fox's best performances (and movies) standing as underrated to this day. That film is the 1996 horror comedy The Frighteners, which is equally notable for being a Peter Jackson movie that he made at a pivotal time in his career -- right after a string of low-budget horror movies and shortly before his Lord of the Rings trilogy made him one of the 21st century's biggest directors. It's an underrated movie that works fantastically well as a light-hearted supernatural horror movie, benefiting from Jackson's direction, its inventive special effects, a solid blend of scares and laughs, and of course its central performance from Fox. It's a worthwhile film to seek out for anyone who's let it pass them by, though there are interesting (and somewhat understandable) reasons why it didn't initially garner a great deal of attention, and instead ended up gaining a cult following in the years after its release.
What Makes 'The Frighteners' So Good?
The Frighteners has Fox playing a man named Frank Bannister who -- despite being the protagonist of a fairly comedic movie -- has a tragic past. He was in a car accident that injured him and claimed his wife's life. Inexplicably, the whole incident also gave him psychic powers that enabled him to see, hear, and talk to ghosts. The film begins with Frank using these unique abilities for shady purposes, as he's essentially become a conman who hires ghosts to haunt houses, at which point he's hired as an exorcist, charging exorbitant prices for those houses to be "exorcised." This essentially makes him like a slightly sleazier Ghostbuster, but he finds himself wanting to use his powers for good after he discovers the presence of a particularly evil ghost that's indiscriminately murdering both humans and undead beings.
As previously mentioned, the film has Jackson finding some middle ground between the kinds of movies that defined his early filmmaking career throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and those that defined his 2000s and onwards output. It plays around with the kind of tone found in movies like Bad Taste and Braindead: a very distinct balance of horror and comedy. However, the budget is noticeably beefier than what his earlier films had, which foreshadows how his later films would look increasingly more expensive and epic in scope (like The Lord of the Rings and his 2005 version of King Kong). The Frighteners is not his best film, but it's still very good. And it's naturally fascinating to see him balance the style of his earlier movies with some aspects that are reminiscent of his later movies; it's especially easy to compare the ghosts in The Frighteners to the undead army in The Return of the King, for example.
What Makes Michael J. Fox's Performance So Winning?
So naturally, being a movie that has the spirit (pun intended) of a low-budget movie but a decent amount of money behind it makes The Frighteners feel a little odd. Perhaps it's fair to say that it feels like it's in no man's land, so to speak -- or at least it might feel that way for people who can't get into it. But others might find that contrast interesting, which could explain the cult following. Either way, there's no doubt that finding an actor who could ground a movie like this must have been a challenging job. A well-established director might have had their pick of actors even with such a far-out concept. But in the mid-1990s, Jackson was still more or less a newcomer to anything that wasn't strictly a low-budget horror movie, with The Frighteners being the most ambitious movie he directed before taking a trip to Middle Earth. Signing onto such a movie could have been a daunting task. Enter Michael J. Fox, who was more than up to it.
Fox ends up being a big reason why The Frighteners has endured and now holds up as one of the best horror movies of the 1990s. Before this 1996 film, he'd essentially done a little bit of everything. He'd led a comedic sci-fi trilogy with Back to the Future, been a lead character in a long-running sitcom, had starred in another supernatural movie already with 1985's Teen Wolf, and had proven himself capable of less comedic roles with Casualties of War. With The Frighteners, he was able to channel much of what made those previous performances great into a single movie, and it now stands as one of his best roles. In addition, he also had to convincingly interact with special effects rather than actors a good deal of the time, as many of his scenes featured ghosts that had to shot separately and/or enhanced with CGI.
Why Wasn't 'The Frighteners' a Huge Success?
Despite Fox and Jackson both giving The Frighteners their all, it wasn't exactly a hit upon release. The budget was approximately $30 million, yet its total worldwide gross is estimated to be slightly less than that at about $29 million. There have certainly been bigger box office bombs throughout history, but it's safe to say that The Frighteners failed to make its money back through its initial release. (It may have become profitable in the years since, thanks to being televised and also sold on DVD/Blu-ray.) Sadly, it could well have been that it was just a little too strange of a premise to effectively market to a wide audience. Straightforward comedies have tried and tested ways of being advertised, and the same can be said for horror movies. Yet for as appealing as horror comedies can be, it's harder to establish the effective balance of two contrasting genres to potential viewers, especially within the confines of say a single trailer.
It also may have been hurt by getting a surprise R-rating, even though Jackson (quite rightly) believed it deserved a more accessible PG-13 rating. Jackson himself was also apparently unhappy with the marketing campaign for his movie, and the fact it came out around the same time as the smash-hit Independence Day may have similarly hurt its chances of being successful. Yet time has been kind to The Frighteners, and though it couldn't excel at the box office, it can excel now, either through streaming services or physical media. Watching it now, it feels like it's certainly of the 1990s, but in a very charming way. And Fox's charismatic and multi-faceted performance is a big reason the movie ends up being so engaging. It's also neat to see the steps as a filmmaker Jackson takes with it, shortly before he went on achieve greatness with The Lord of the Rings. His work on The Frighteners is frighteningly good, all things considered, making it a movie worth watching before you die!
ncG1vNJzZmibn6G5qrDEq2Wcp51ks7O1xqGrnqaVp8BuvMStnKtlmpawrL%2FOp2SmoZOdrqa4jKNkn6eoZA%3D%3D